Well, Lope’s toki pona is very conservative; he does not acknowledge many changes which the community has adopted (most of the spamming he mentions consisted of pointing this out, though I may have said a few things not apprporate for addressing my elders). So, some of his suggestions would be hard for most toki pona people to read.What is said is the (only) direct object of ‘toki’ and so is set off by ‘e’. ‘mi wile toki e ni:’ That seems to be about the only way to introduce indirect speech in toki pona, awkward thoughit may be (though it follows English and French somewhat “he says that...” “on dit que ...”, though the parts of speech may be different. ‘ike’ is the standard word for complex, among other bad things. The apostrophe after ‘li’ is one of Lope’s peculiarities which is not conservative. I understand his reason for it and applaud his doing something about it, just not what he did. The apostrophe goes with a strange grammar that includes a never-visible verb “be” that goes with what the rest of us call nouns and adjectives serving as verbs. In any case, you don’t need it in toki pona for the broader community.Since only what is said is the direct object of ‘toki’, it follows that the language in which it is said is something else. The community has hit upon ‘kepeken’ or ‘lon’ to introduce the language name. So, ‘mi toki kepeken/lon toki Epanja’In ‘lon poka’ ‘poka’ is a noun, not a preposition, so words that follow it have to be attached as modifiers, so ‘lon poka pi toki Kanse’. I’m not sure this is the best way to say this. Lope’s suggestion is good Spanish is a little like French” or ‘toki Epanja li poka tawa toki Kanse”. “Spanish is close to French”. I’m not sure what the last sentence is supposed to mean. Your version say “The language of toki pona is the same as nothing”. Lope’s say “is not the same as anything”. These seem to pretty much amont to the same thing and so both are probably OK but confusing to English speakers who handle “all” and “not” differently.sina pali pona. o awen.

janKipo wrote:Well, Lope’s toki pona is very conservative; he does not acknowledge many changes which the community has adopted (most of the spamming he mentions consisted of pointing this out, though I may have said a few things not apprporate for addressing my elders). So, some of his suggestions would be hard for most toki pona people to read.What is said is the (only) direct object of ‘toki’ and so is set off by ‘e’. ‘mi wile toki e ni:’ That seems to be about the only way to introduce indirect speech in toki pona, awkward thoughit may be (though it follows English and French somewhat “he says that...” “on dit que ...”, though the parts of speech may be different. ‘ike’ is the standard word for complex, among other bad things. The apostrophe after ‘li’ is one of Lope’s peculiarities which is not conservative. I understand his reason for it and applaud his doing something about it, just not what he did. The apostrophe goes with a strange grammar that includes a never-visible verb “be” that goes with what the rest of us call nouns and adjectives serving as verbs. In any case, you don’t need it in toki pona for the broader community.Since only what is said is the direct object of ‘toki’, it follows that the language in which it is said is something else. The community has hit upon ‘kepeken’ or ‘lon’ to introduce the language name. So, ‘mi toki kepeken/lon toki Epanja’In ‘lon poka’ ‘poka’ is a noun, not a preposition, so words that follow it have to be attached as modifiers, so ‘lon poka pi toki Kanse’. I’m not sure this is the best way to say this. Lope’s suggestion is good Spanish is a little like French” or ‘toki Epanja li poka tawa toki Kanse”. “Spanish is close to French”. I’m not sure what the last sentence is supposed to mean. Your version say “The language of toki pona is the same as nothing”. Lope’s say “is not the same as anything”. These seem to pretty much amont to the same thing and so both are probably OK but confusing to English speakers who handle “all” and “not” differently.sina pali pona. o awen.

And what I meant on my last post was that according to me spanish grammar was very similar to the french one. And I find tp grammar more difficult to understand that the spanish one. Ok, tp vocabulary looks more simple than french or spanish (or english) (well is that true according to the necessary to combine two or more words?) but it seems very difficult to me to make sentences in tp.

I've been learning tp only for 3 weeks, so I have the time...how many hours did you need to speak tp fluently?

And what I meant on my last post was that according to me spanish grammar was very similar to the french one. And I find tp grammar more difficult to understand that the spanish one. Ok, tp vocabulary looks more simple than french or spanish (or english) (well is that true according to the necessary to combine two or more words?) but it seems very difficult to me to make sentences in tp.

I've been learning tp only for 3 weeks, so I have the time...how many hours did you need to speak tp fluently?